The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education
Michaeldsuarez
post Fri 24th February 2012, 4:15am
Post #41


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 9:01am) *

One argument that has so far been neglected is that the article in the Chronicle was a clear WP:CANVASSING violation. It was clearly a non-neutral message, and it was directed at a select audience – scholars – that might be supportive of the poster's stance, and has led to an influx of new editors who had no prior interest in the article. fear.gif

Discussion is still rumbling on on the Foundation list. Mike Godwin has involved himself with a few posts.


WP:CANVASSING is Wikipedia's silliest policy. According to that policy, reporters may not report the news, bloggers may not express themselves, and forum users may not share ideas.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 4th March 2012, 4:10am
Post #42


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Just a minor followup:

Here are the schmucks on Metafilter discussing the Messer-Kruse affair.

QUOTE

Wikipedia editors don't have any means to distinguish the minority expert that's correcting a majority error from the minority expert that's actually a moonbat crank. The only reasonable WP policy is to defer to the majority expert consensus, and sometimes that's going to be wrong, but they don't have any other defense mechanism against cranks trying to use Wikipedia to promote fringe theories.

There are a lot of times when Wikipedia editors are dogmatic bureaucratic idiots, but this isn't one of them.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:11 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
yecch.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sun 4th March 2012, 10:16am
Post #43


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 4th March 2012, 4:10am) *

Just a minor followup:

Here are the schmucks on Metafilter discussing the Messer-Kruse affair.

QUOTE

Wikipedia editors don't have any means to distinguish the minority expert that's correcting a majority error from the minority expert that's actually a moonbat crank. The only reasonable WP policy is to defer to the majority expert consensus, and sometimes that's going to be wrong, but they don't have any other defense mechanism against cranks trying to use Wikipedia to promote fringe theories.

There are a lot of times when Wikipedia editors are dogmatic bureaucratic idiots, but this isn't one of them.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:11 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
yecch.gif


That was good enough for me to go to the trouble of recalling my old password there.
http://www.metafilter.com/113495/What-did-...se-days#4221526

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 10 14, 4:14am